I accept Birth Control, and that's not gonna change!

[Scottgun]

There is a huge error here. Just because a teaching is not formally defined as infallible dogma, does not mean it is up in the air. The teaching is authoritative and binding on the faithful and Catholics must give both exterior and interior assent to it. Again, I realize it would be a huge sacrifice, but you need to humbly submit to the teaching both in word and in deed, and in your heart.

Scott

 

[noma]

After all, Martin Luther and his followers disagreed with the Church about Papal Authority, presumably they were as well educated as yourself, they may also have been disinterested as yourself. Although clearly you did have a horse running in this race if you do contracept yourself. They too did nothing worse than put their own private judgement above the teaching authority of the Church. How then are you different?

Firstly, no Priest that I know accepts that contracepting is in any normal circumstance acceptable. Ever.

Secondly, I don’t see myself as being that intelligent, not even to the level of Martin Luther. That is one difference.

Thirdly, I do not teach, and refuse to teach, that artificial contraception is morally neutral. I refuse to teach this because the Church does not teach this. I refuse to teach this in RCIA, and would refuse even to teach this to my children.

But I will live, currently, as though contraception is morally acceptable, becuase I believe that it is. Honestly, if my children were to ask me why I live in a different way than I teach, I would not have a good answer for them. This is one of the reasons I am searching for people’s reasons as to whether I should continue to call myself Catholic.

My question to you: is this enough of a difference to set myself qualitatively apart from Martin Luther? If not, I certainly should consider myself (if I am honest with myself) as a protestant who attends mass.

 

[Franciscan]

I believe that the discipline that the Church Fathers teach concerning Birth Control is incorrect. I believe that the ethics, and natural law itself lead to the acceptance of birth control as morally neutral. As such, using Birth Control, I accept, is not a sin.

I say this not to try to argue that I am right (I may very well be wrong), but to distinguish that I am not accepting the potential sinlessness of contracepting because it is convenient (at least, that is not what I am consciously doing), but rather because I truly believe it, and believe that the Church, through her infallible teachings on faith and morals, teaches just this, and that the contradiction between this implicit moral teaching and its current explicit disciplinary teaching will be resolved when the Church abandons its current stance concerning contraception.

Noma, if the contraception is sterlization(permanent) and not something you can stop doing like, the pill, or condom then you could make an honest and open confession declaring your weakness and be absolved. Am I wrong here?

 

[FillTheVoid]

So you have to be attempting to get your wife pregnant every time you have relations with her? This does not make much sense, if that were the case you would literally be a baby factory. I don’t see how it’s a sin to have relations with your wife for whatever reason.

How does one “use” their own wife? That seems like a deeper issue than simply having relations with your wife for one reason or the other. This should be a personal issue.

 

[noma]

Noma, if the contraception is sterlization(permanent) and not something you can stop doing like, the pill, or condom then you could make an honest and open confession declaring your weakness and be absolved. Am I wrong here?

I believe that sterilization is always a grave matter.

 

[mercygate]

Firstly, no Priest that I know accepts that contracepting is in any normal circumstance acceptable. Ever.

Secondly, I don’t see myself as being that intelligent, not even to the level of Martin Luther. That is one difference.

Thirdly, I do not teach, and refuse to teach, that artificial contraception is morally neutral. I refuse to teach this because the Church does not teach this. I refuse to teach this in RCIA, and would refuse even to teach this to my children.

But I will live, currently, as though contraception is morally acceptable, becuase I believe that it is. Honestly, if my children were to ask me why I live in a different way than I teach, I would not have a good answer for them. This is one of the reasons I am searching for people’s reasons as to whether I should continue to call myself Catholic.

My question to you: is this enough of a difference to set myself qualitatively apart from Martin Luther? If not, I certainly should consider myself (if I am honest with myself) as a protestant who attends mass.

The fact that you are asking the question means that it is an issue for you. Give yourself points.

Others have asked how you have arrived at your position.

Is there some reason that NFP is unacceptable to you? If you are teaching RCIA, you should have a pretty good grip on the big picture – not just: *Roma locuta est. *So I’m kind of confused about why you would think ABC is OK.

Congratulations for teaching what the Church teaches. Without even knowing you, I believe you and I believe that you do not cross your fingers and wink when you deal with the subject in class.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I do take communion (most weeks, when I do not find myself in mortal sin), as I find nothing wrong with birth control. The Priest giving communion knows this, and still gives me communion.

:sigh: :nope: :sigh: I’m at a lost for words on that statement. I think I’m just plain shocked! (I’m sure you can understand why).

However, I know that this is something between God and you; and God and the priest. I am hoping that you are going to confession prior to receiving.

Anyway you haven’t said what form of contraception that you are using, clearly it is not NFP: I still think you and your wife should look into NFP.

So I wanted to add this. I don’t know if this would help you out or not: If you read: Genesis 38:6-10; you will se that Onan was punished by God for doing what is known as “Coitus Interruptus”.

Coitus Interruptus means to pull out or withdrawal before the ejaculation. That is what Onan did, he withdrew. It’s because he withdrew and wasted his semen he was put to death. Again that’s Genesis 38:6-10. Now this is my view on Condoms! Condoms also make the semen wasteful!! They like pulling out prevent the semen from entering the vagina. Therefore, it is my opinion, that condoms like Coitus Interruptus are a SIN in Gods eyes.

Also you might be interested to learn how the Jewish people interpreted the passage:
Judaism 101:

Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. This law is derived from the story of Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), who practiced coitus interruptus as a means of birth control to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother. G-d killed Onan for this sin. Although Onan’s act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh’cha’tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina. In fact, the prohibition is so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, “in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off.” (Niddah 13a) Source: jewfaq.org/sex.htm

This, in my opinion, means that the Jewish faith forbids the use of condoms. Seeing using condom, in my opinion, means that the ejaculation takes place outside the vagina.

Okay my next question would did the Jews in Jesus time have the same view re: condoms? Well to answer that question we would need to know: Where there even condoms in those days? “yes” there were condoms in those day. The earliest condoms date back to around 1000 B.C. in ancient Egypt. So condoms were around.

Did the Jews in Jesus time see the use of condoms sinful? In my opinion: YES. Jewish law forbids any act of ejaculation outside the vagina. I believe that the Jews and “Early Christians” had the understanding that using a condom meant that ejaculation was happening outside the vagina, therefore it was and is sinful in the eyes of God. That’s just my 2 cents on condoms.

Remember God is never changing He is still the same. What is a sin in HIS eyes will always be a sin in HIS eyes. Thank God for his mercy and forgiveness. Right!!!

 

[carol_marie]

I’m not understanding you.

You said you teach only what the Church teaches reagarding ABC - but yet you think the Church is wrong? Or just wrong in your case?

If someone in your RCIA class said that he doesn’t believe the Church is wrong about premarital sex so he isn’t sinning by having sex, and he asks you if he can still take communion, what would you say?

 

[FillTheVoid]

NFP is contraception just like other corms of contraception am I incorrect? What is the difference?

This is out of hand in my personal opinion. I think the Church should stay out of the bedroom between married couples. They’re married for crying out loud, how can it be a sin to have relations with your wife for any reason at all?

This is a personal issue that should not be invaded by an authority other than the couple and their relationship with God.

We aren’t under the jewish law am I incorrect? This is absurdly scrupulous.

 

[noma]

Is there some reason that NFP is unacceptable to you?

Thank you for your very kind post. In most forums, I would probably say that I am surprised, but so far I have found no response to be lacking in love.

As for NFP, I see it as contraception using a “technology of abstinence”. If I came to accept that contraception were wrong, I would have to accept NFP as wrong as well.

The nice thing about NFP is that it cannot be used to prevent pregnancy (no matter how people argue it, I will be happy to quote medical studies that show it to be ineffective at this). Instead, NFP naturally regulates pregnancy.

I believe that other forms of contraception could be used in the same vein, but with a higher degree of regularity.

 

[mike182d]

So you have to be attempting to get your wife pregnant every time you have relations with her? This does not make much sense, if that were the case you would literally be a baby factory. I don’t see how it’s a sin to have relations with your wife for whatever reason.

Nowhere does the Church say that every time you have sex with your wife that is must be with the intent to get pregnant. “Openess to life” is not the same as “Trying to create life all the time.” I am open to donating my gifts of talent, time, and money to the Church but this does not mean I have to be doing this all the time. Likewise, to actively pursue measures that would keep me from donating my gifts of talent, time, and money *would *be sinful.

How does one “use” their own wife?

Having sex with your spouse because you “have to” or “are craving it” or “dont’ have a choice” is effectively using your spouse as nothing more than a release for biological urges and not respecting them as a human person. Love is always a choice and sex, as that supreme act of marital love, should also always be a free choice.

 

[mike182d]

NFP is contraception just like other corms of contraception am I incorrect? What is the difference?

NFP is *not *contraception. Contraception, by definition, is to be “against conception.”

People often ask what the difference is between taking chemicals to prevent conception and just letting nature wait it out until the wife is naturally infertile.

Christopher West says it best with the following analogy:

What’s the difference between taking Grandma’s life and just letting nature wait it out?

This is a personal issue that should not be invaded by an authority other than the couple and their relationship with God.

We did not create the act of sex, nor are we responsible for creating the very bodies by which we partake of sex. By what authority are *we *to decide how to use it?

 

[noma]

If someone in your RCIA class said that he doesn’t believe the Church is wrong about premarital sex so he isn’t sinning by having sex, and he asks you if he can still take communion, what would you say?

First, I would share with him the many reasons why sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is wrong in that it is disordered.

I would ask him to very seriously consider how the person is offending God by continuing in this action, and whether one can honestly share in the table with the Lamb while holding against Him an offence tantamount to denying Him.

If that person could honestly look at what I have said, and the reasons I have given, and still believe that they should accept communion, I do not see that their acceptance is itself mortal sin, since they already would not meet all the requirements for having committed mortal sin in the first place.

I would also state that he should wait until he is baptized (confirmed) before recieving communion, and should wait until the end of the program to do so. I would say this with much excitement, remembering my Baptism and First Communion with great joy.

 

[fix]

Though I believe that the Church Militant’s teaching concerning contraception can change, because it is not an infallible matter of faith and morals, I am a lay person. More so, I am a lay person who assists in teaching catechism.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

It can’t change. It is a matter of natural moral law. I think it is good you are exploring this matter and I am curious as to how you reconcile your position with logic? By that I mean how do you conclude the Church can “change” such a teaching when She Herself has said the opposite? If I am following your reasoning then I must conclude the Church is not guided by Christ. If the Church is wrong in this matter, then She is not to be trusted in other matters of faith and morals.

It is not just a matter of contraception it is a matter of final authority. Who may loose and bind? How can we ever properly form our consciences if the Church is wrong in transmitting the objective truth?

 

[mercygate]

As for NFP, I see it as contraception using a “technology of abstinence”. If I came to accept that contraception were wrong, I would have to accept NFP as wrong as well.

You seem to equate abstinence with active contraception. They are actually quite different both technically and morally. Sometimes people struggle to grasp that but when you build your thinking on the “big picture” it falls into place. The light bulb goes on and suddenly, you “get” it!

The nice thing about NFP is that it cannot be used to prevent pregnancy (no matter how people argue it, I will be happy to quote medical studies that show it to be ineffective at this). Instead, NFP naturally regulates pregnancy.

Yup! If NFP is used conservatively, it works – that is if you need to avoid pregnancy. It is my understanding that when it fails (it would be erroneous to say that it is ineffective), it is because people take risks.

{quote]I believe that other forms of contraception could be used in the same vein, but with a higher degree of regularity.
I think you mean reliability. Anyway, that’s really not the point. At all. And you know that ABC also fails. Lemme tell ya about my doctor friend who got pregnant 4 months after the birth of her second child WHILE ON THE PILL!

 

[noma]

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Because I do not believe that the Church’s teaching on contraception is a matter of faith and morals. I believe it to be a matter of discipline.

 

[mike182d]

As for NFP, I see it as contraception using a “technology of abstinence”. If I came to accept that contraception were wrong, I would have to accept NFP as wrong as well.

You cannot reduce sex to a mere bodily act, that is the problem with the NFP/Contraception debate.

“Contraception” is not a tangible thing, it is a mentality; how one approaches the sexual act. Thus, NFP while not inherently contraception *can *be used as such and this is equally wrong.

Sex is a renewal of our marital vows and the act should therefore be a physical manifestation of these very vows. When we make our vows to our spouse at the altar, we promise several things:

To be total, faithful and fruitful.

Contraception acknowledges *neither *of these vows and therefore cannot be considered a renewal of them.

NFP is total, as there is no physical obstruction, faithful, as it places one’s complete trust in God in the act, and fruitful in that NFP can be used to *achieve *pregnancy.

I’ll repost the following analogy for the sake of clarification between the two.

Proponents of contraception criticize NFP by asking: “what’s the difference between using chemicals or medicine to prevent pregnancy and just waiting out nature?”

From that same logic, it can be asked:

“What’s the difference between using chemicals to take Grandma’s life and just waiting out nature?”

 

[mercygate]

I think we would keep this thread clearer if we separated the OP’s concerns from the protests being mounted by fillthevoid.

Fill – can you start another thread?

 

[FillTheVoid]

NFP is contraception. Tell yourself whatever you must, it’s contraception. You are having relations with your wife in a period where you know she will not get pregnant for the intent of not allowing her to get pregnant.

We are not animals, we don’t have relations simply for pro creation. God did not mean it to be that way, it’s to be something more than that. Something special between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether or not you’re making a baby or not.

We have control over our bodies and God intended for us to have control over certain aspects of ourselves. That is why we are not robots like animals.

This is being overly scrupulous and should be something between a couple.

If someone is going to tell me that having relations with my WIFE is a sin for any reason whatsoever I am going to object.

I would not treat my wife like an animal or an object because I respect her. I see no problem at all with having pleasurable relations with someone I care about deeply. Regardless of whether she wants to get pregant or not.

I will choose when I want to have a child for the CHILDS SAKE I WILL CHOOSE WHEN AND WHEN I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD.

 

[LilyM]

FillTheVoid:

NFP is contraception just like other corms of contraception am I incorrect? What is the difference?

This is out of hand in my personal opinion. I think the Church should stay out of the bedroom between married couples. They’re married for crying out loud, how can it be a sin to have relations with your wife for any reason at all?

This is a personal issue that should not be invaded by an authority other than the couple and their relationship with God.

We aren’t under the jewish law am I incorrect? This is absurdly scrupulous.

‘for any reason at all’? So, for example, you think there’s no such thing as rape within marriage? Or do you agree that there have to be at least some limits in that sex has to be consensual?

What, then, if the couple then consensually agree that one or more additional people can be brought into the bedroom? Or that the marriage can be ‘open’ and the partners can have as many outside affairs as they want?

The fact is what goes on in a couple’s bedroom is not just their own business - it is also God’s, before whom they took their vows, and who instituted the sacrament of marriage to begin with.

And the Church is God’s chosen instrument (or one of them) for teaching God’s will in all circumstances. Therefore it is also his instrument for teaching married couples how to conduct their sex lives.

NFP is a very different creature from artificial (chemical or physical) barriers to contraception. Doesn’t have any of the health risks for one. For another it encourages periods of abstinence between the couple - and it is just as beneficial to exercise a little self-discipline in this regard as it is in regard to, eg, eating or drinking alcohol.